E-Government Strategy
Governance Framework
FY2004 – FY2008
December 2003
Table of Contents
1.0
INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................2
1.1
PURPOSE......................................................................................................................................................2
1.2
METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................................................................3

2.0
CASE FOR CHANGE ..................................................................................................................................4
2.1
BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................................4
2.2
GOVERNANCE CAPABILITY NEEDS..............................................................................................................5

3.0
E-GOVERNMENT GOVERNANCE MODEL..........................................................................................8
3.1
LEADERSHIP AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE CHANGES.......................................................................8
3.2
PROCESS MANAGEMENT CHANGES ...........................................................................................................12

APPENDIX A – TOOLS AND TEMPLATES

APPENDIX A-1 – VISIONING SESSION GUIDE

APPENDIX A-2 – BUSINESS CASE SUMMARY TEMPLATE

APPENDIX A-3 – PRIORITIZATION FRAMEWORK

APPENDIX A-4 – PROJECT AND SLA STATUS REPORT TEMPLATE



Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework
1
1.0
Introduction
With Interior facing the challenge of using technology to provide citizen-centered, integrated,
secure services, the need for effective governance – accountable decision-making and the
structures and processes that turn decisions into actions – has never been greater. Governance
issues are complex and easy to get wrong, but E-Government success depends on getting them
right.

Effective E-Governance enables decision-making as well as decision follow-through across three
primary components:

1. Leadership: The roles and responsibilities of the organization's appointed officials and
senior executive management that shape the organization’s strategic vision, culture,
decision-making processes, and plan for action.
2. Organizational Structure: The structure and form of organizational relationships that
support decision-making, foster appropriate culture, and build essential skills in order to
marshal resources to make things happen.
3. Process Management: The management of how organizations serve their customers and
measure success or failure, including leadership and decision-making processes, as well
as changes to operational processes required to support new E-Government capabilities.

















Roles and
responsibilities of the
senior management
that shape strategic
vision, culture,
decision-making
processes, and plans
for action
Management of
activities, including
leadership and
decision-making
processes,
performance
measurement, and
changes to operational
processes
Structure and form of relationships that support decision-
making, foster appropriate culture, and marshal resources
to execute the strategy
The “Three Pillars”
of eGovernment
Governance
LeadershipOrganizational StructureProcess ManagementeGovernment
Success
1.1
Purpose
This document describes a new governance framework for managing the lifecycle
implementation of E-Government at the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). The new model
builds on the strengths and challenges of the existing governance approach in order to introduce
the changes needed for launching Interior’s enterprise-wide E-Government Strategy. The
objectives of the new governance model are to build the leadership, organizational structures and
process management required to:


Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework
2
•
Increase coordination and collaboration, particularly in identifying and managing cross-
cutting initiatives, on E-Government across the enterprise to increase efficiency and
enhance service delivery;
•
Improve two-way communication across program, Bureau, and Departmental lines
regarding E-Government; and
• Better align Interior’s technology investments to business needs using a portfolio
management perspective to analyze tradeoffs and establish investment priorities.

1.2
Methodology
The approach to determining Interior’s new E-Government governance model included the
following series of steps:

1.
Document and assess the current E-Government governance environment;
2.
Identify capability needs, in alignment with the E-Government vision; and
3.
Define the future E-Government governance model.

In order to document the current E-Government governance structure and processes and gather
requirements for the new model, a number of interviews and meetings were conducted across the
organization. Documenting Interior’s current E-Government leadership, organizational
structure, and process management revealed the issue’s complexity and the broad range of
individual leaders, groups, and processes already addressing E-Government activities at Interior.
The assessment process included both primary research – interviews with managers and staff
across the Department and the Bureaus – and secondary research – existing Interior policies and
procedures such as the IT Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) Guide and reports
such as the Inspector General’s report on Interior’s web presence and GAO’s report on the
investment management process. When compiled, the research revealed recurrent themes
pointing to both strengths and challenges of the current governance approach.

Comparing these strengths and challenges to the E-Government vision articulated in the
Department’s new E-Government Strategy yielded a set of clear capability needs that the new
governance model must address. Interior’s E-Gov Team, a subcommittee of the Management
Initiatives Team comprised of senior business leaders from each Bureau and key Departmental
offices, made a number of decisions about these capability needs, including how business leaders
will participate in E-Government and about how E-Government activities will be coordinated
across program, Bureau, and Department lines. The new governance model emerged from these
decisions, which build on the current strengths and tackle the current challenges in order to
enable Interior’s strategic E-Government vision. The project team also attended meetings of the
Presidential E-Government Initiatives representatives, DOI Web Resources Council, and the
Interior Business Architecture Team to ensure the new governance model is aligned with those
ongoing efforts.



Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework
3
2.0 Case for Change
2.1
Background
Currently, multiple parties are responsible for E-Government activities at the Departmental level
within Interior. As depicted in the “as-is” organizational structure below, three distinct silos
exist (from left to right): 1) high-level decision-making bodies comprised of senior business
executives; 2) high-level governing bodies relating to information technology management; and
3) groups responsible for strategic planning and Interior’s participation in the government-wide
President’s Management Agenda (PMA) E-Government initiatives. This dispersion causes a
lack of distinction between different parties’ roles and responsibilities, and leads to unclear
ownership of and accountability for E-Government. Further, the disparate decision-making
processes reinforce existing communication gaps between the three areas. As a result,
communication between Departmental projects can be lacking, and efforts are not united to
present a clear enterprise-wide focus.


Assistant
Sec PMB/CFO
MIT
MEC
ITMC
Funding only
Office of
Acquisition
and Property
CIO
IT Working
Groups
Geospatial
One Stop
Recreation
.gov
PMA eGov
Initiative
Reps
DAS Perf
and Mgmt
Volunteer
.gov
Office of
PPP
eGov Team
DAS Budget
and
Finance
Office of
Budget
NBC
2 reps from ITMC are
on the eGov Team
IT Portfolio
Management
Division
Bureau IT
Review
Boards
4 C’s4 C’sHuman CapitalHuman CapitalCompetitive Sourcing & ProcurementCompetitive Sourcing & ProcurementPlanning, Budget, and Financial Mgmt IntegrationPlanning, Budget, and Financial Mgmt IntegrationFacilities & AssetMgmtFacilities & AssetMgmtStrategic
Planning
Collaboration
Secretary
of the
Interior
Collaboration
ePayroll
Bureau
Business
Leads
Bureau
CIOs
Bureau
Budget Rep/
CFO
Existing process/relationship
Departmental Office
Bureau Representatives
Interdepartmental Efforts
Informal relationship
Collaboration





















E-Government activities are occurring simultaneously within each Bureau as well, often with
what is perceived as inadequate or inconsistent communication between the Department and the
Bureaus. This lack of communication occurs in both directions – too few upfront messages from
the Department to increase the Bureaus’ awareness and expectations about upcoming changes,
and too little direct input from the Bureaus in shaping what those upcoming changes will look
like. Similarly, information-sharing between Bureaus about current E-Government capabilities
and best practices is ad hoc, which can result in duplicate investments and redundant work.
However, there is currently no formal structure to guide Bureaus in working together to develop
shared E-Government initiatives, and there is no incentive for a Bureau to take on the additional
financial and workload burden to do so.


Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework
4

Looking broadly across all of Interior’s E-Government activities at both the Department and
Bureau levels, business leaders are involved inconsistently in driving investment management.
Their absence is particularly apparent at the enterprise level of investment portfolio management.
Without this business leadership involvement, aligning investments to established business
priorities is becoming increasingly difficult. Business leaders are not involved, except at the
very highest levels within the Department, in making difficult decisions about how to invest
limited resources across the enterprise in order to elicit the best value for Interior and its
customers. The current capital planning process also does not provide a performance
measurement process that enables leaders to evaluate initiatives’ progress and make funding
allocation decisions based on that progress in order to revive or weed out unsuccessful efforts.

2.2
Governance Capability Needs
The E-Government vision articulated by Interior extends the boundaries of how information
technology has traditionally been managed. It demands that Interior balance redefining business
processes and creating new technology solutions with consistently delivering reliable
information and services to its customers. Not only does it compel business leaders to fill an
increasingly larger role in setting priorities and making decisions about the Department’s
investment portfolio, but it also requires growing coordination across program, Bureau, and
Departmental lines. Achieving the Department’s enterprise-wide E-Government strategic goals
and objectives will require a blend of insight, planning, collaboration, and commitment at all
levels.

Based on its current E-Government successes, Interior is already well positioned to deliver
successful results. However, effective governance requires building off the current strengths and
finding new ways to address the challenges posed in the present governance model.

Leadership Needs
E-Government leadership already stems from individual business leaders, project managers,
information technology policy makers and technology developers across the Department and its
Bureaus. Future E-Government success will rely heavily on sustained senior level sponsorship
to prioritize and integrate individual efforts from an enterprise perspective. Beyond this
direction-setting role, E-Government leadership at Interior fundamentally requires strong
communication on many levels – project-to-project, Bureau-to-Bureau, and Department-to-
Department. Good communication, organization, and negotiation skills are imperative. The
following activities describe actions leaders must take to guide E-Government successfully.
Effective leaders of E-Government at Interior must:
ƒ Display visible, sustained ownership;
ƒ Establish and maintain proper direction, through implementation of this E-Government
Strategy;
ƒ Highlight success stories and share best practices;
ƒ Identify E-Government opportunities;
ƒ Address potential problems, resolve issues, and mitigate risks;
ƒ Gain commitment and support within the Interior community;


Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework
5
ƒ Assign budget priority and obtain resources;
ƒ Ensure a set of E-Government guidance and standards for the Department is developed,
as appropriate;
ƒ Coordinate monitoring of E-Government implementation at Interior and prepare
reporting to federal regulatory bodies as needed; and
ƒ Champion Interior’s E-Government efforts externally.

Given these leadership activities, it is clear that these qualities do not only need to be exhibited at
the senior executive level. As the strategy’s implementation evolves, leaders will be needed at
many different levels, from the most junior developer on a project to a senior executive sponsor.
In particular, mid-level program managers will serve a critical role in gaining buy-in, building
momentum, and managing the complexity of planning, monitoring, and implementing cross-
cutting E-Government initiatives.

Organizational Structure Needs
Interior’s maturing IT management and investment portfolio management models provide a
foundation for building a strong governance structure. Effective governance requires building
clear relationships between existing IT management organizations, business leaders, and
individual project managers at the Bureau, Department, and Federal-wide level. To foster the
desire to centralize some E-Government efforts, the governance structure needs to focus heavily
on improving and increasing communication between these groups and across all levels. It must
provide a consistent structure for participation in direction-setting for E-Government projects, for
sharing best practices and lessons learned, and for addressing competing demands on funding
and workforce resources. A successful model must include top-down leadership and bottoms-up
participation with the ability to collaborate, share information, and manage organizational
knowledge.

As the Department moves from the strategic planning stage of E-Government into the
implementation stage, it is critically important that the governance structure provides the
foundation for:

ƒ Driving business requirements;
ƒ Defining priorities; and
ƒ Providing ongoing coordination.

Process Management Needs
The process management activities that comprise E-Government governance intersect
significantly with the activities traditionally conducted through an IT portfolio management
program. As Interior’s portfolio management model continues to mature, it needs to address
several key areas to enable successful E-Government:
• A method for determining Interior’s most important and urgent E-Government needs
and establishing them as priorities;
• An approach that facilitates communication and collaboration between Bureaus and
enables them to partner on shared E-Government solutions; and


Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework
6
• A means for consistently and accurately measuring the performance of ongoing projects
to assess their viability and the benefits they generate.

To transition successfully to a new governance model, these E-Government processes must be
integrated into existing management processes. Streamlining, rather than burdening, current
activities is the goal. This approach means clear responsibilities and accountabilities, with
defined handoffs between governing bodies. Finally, and fundamentally, in order to foster the
communication that is critical for success, the E-Government governance processes must be
transparent.


Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework
7
3.0 E-Government Governance Model
The E-Government governance model seeks to address these capability needs by promoting a
collaborative environment with business leaders and technical leaders regularly working together
to make decisions across Interior’s investment portfolio. Rather than creating a drastically new
organizational and process management structure, the new governance model builds off existing
IT and E-Government organizations and the ongoing IT portfolio management process. The new
model leverages Inter-Bureau groups to facilitate communication across the organization while
also enabling an enterprise-wide view of business priorities, resulting in economies of scale and
reduced redundancy. Establishing defined responsibilities and consistent communication
between E-Government-related groups is key to the success of this effort. The following E-
Government governance structure has been created to support this collaborative environment and
ensure E-Government efforts meet Interior’s strategic, business, and technical objectives.




















Assistant
Sec PMB/CFO
MIT
MEC
ITMC
Office of
Acquisition
and Property
CIO
Geospatial
One Stop
Recreation
.gov
DAS Perf
and Mgmt
Volunteer
.gov
Office of
PPP
E-Gov
Team
DAS Budget
and
Finance
Office of
Budget
NBC
IT Portfolio
Management
Division
Bureau IT
Review
Boards
4 C’s4 C’sHuman CapitalHuman CapitalCompetitive Sourcing & ProcurementCompetitive Sourcing & ProcurementPlanning, Budget, and Financial Mgmt IntegrationPlanning, Budget, and Financial Mgmt IntegrationFacilities & AssetMgmtFacilities & AssetMgmtStrategic
Planning
Secretary
of the
Interior
Bureau
Business
Leads
Bureau
CIOs
Bureau
Budget Rep/
CFO
Bureau
Strategic
Planner
ePayroll
PMA E-Gov
Initiative Reps
Web Council
IBAT
Existing process/relationship
Departmental Office
Bureau Representatives
Interdepartmental Efforts
New process/relationship
Informal relationship
Collaboration
Subset of Group
Departmental
IRB
IT Working
Groups
3.1
Leadership and Organizational Structure Changes
Interior’s E-Government leadership structure remains largely unchanged in this governance
model, but the model places new demands on both business and technical leaders by defining
new roles and increasing levels of collaboration between them. The most significant change is
the creation of a Departmental Investment Review Board comprised of business and technical
leaders from Interior’s Bureaus and key Departmental offices. The new model also establishes
important connections between E-Government governing bodies, including the Department’s
primary business and technical management groups and several existing groups directly related
to implementing this strategy. Finally, the governance model establishes and strengthens links
between Departmental E-Government governance and Bureau governance structures. Each


Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework
8
group affected by the new governance structure is described below along with an overview of the
organizational implications.

Management Initiatives Team
The Management Initiatives Team (MIT) is comprised of senior level business leaders
responsible for overseeing implementation of the President’s Management Agenda (PMA) items
and Interior’s management improvement initiatives. On an annual basis, the MIT also meets to
prioritize investments and present final recommendations to the Management Excellence Council
(MEC), the Department’s most senior decision-making body. The MIT executes its
responsibilities through a number of subcommittees, one of which is the E-Gov Team,
established to support the Administration’s E-Government agenda and address Interior’s unique
E-Government needs. Since E-Government activities may impact other PMA items, the MIT
serves as a critical coordination point between the E-Gov Team and the other MIT
subcommittees.

E-Gov Team
The E-Gov Team is the driving force for defining and implementing Interior’s E-Government
strategy. Composed of business leaders from each Bureau and most Departmental offices, the
team is led by a business representative at the Deputy Assistant Secretary level, with deputy
leadership positions filled from the Office of the CIO and Performance Management and Budget.
An important addition to the membership of the E-Gov Team is a representative from the Office
of Budget. The Department’s IT Management Council (ITMC) already brings together
technology leaders from each Bureau and Departmental office to make technology decisions for
the enterprise. Solidifying the E-Gov Team will create a business-focused complement to the
ITMC. By leveraging the existing ITMC representation on the E-Gov Team, the two groups can
communicate consistently. It is critical for the E-Gov Team to make informed decisions about
how the business priorities of the Department and the Bureaus should shape Interior’s use of
technology. Highlights of their responsibilities include:
• Defining shared business needs;
•
Identifying potential gaps and redundancies in implementing strategic goals;
• Guiding relevant business process redesign efforts;
• Supporting E-Government innovation in service delivery;
• Facilitating communication between the Department and Bureaus, and among the
Bureaus;
• Highlighting relevant best practices and leveraging shared solutions, where appropriate;
and
•
Identifying and removing common barriers to E-Government.

Departmental Investment Review Board
At quarterly points during the ongoing Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) portfolio
management process, the E-Gov Team and the ITMC will formally join to form the
Departmental Investment Review Board (IRB). The Departmental IRB will meet annually to
review business cases, prioritize initiatives and make investment recommendations to the MIT.
In accordance with the CPIC guidelines, the Departmental IRB will meet quarterly to review the
status of ongoing projects. The Departmental IRB will evaluate actual results against planned
performance metrics, service level agreements, and scope and schedule of the major projects and


Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework
9
make any subsequent portfolio management decisions. By creating a combined team of business
and technical leaders to review the projects together on a quarterly basis, business and technical
concerns are addressed simultaneously, keeping the business and technical direction aligned.
Highlights of the IRB’s E-Government-related responsibilities include:
• Determining the significance and urgency of needs shared across the Department and
Bureaus;
• Reviewing CPIC business cases;
• Making recommendations on viability and prioritization of proposed initiatives;
• Preventing duplicate investments and leveraging shared solutions, where appropriate; and
• Providing oversight for ongoing E-Government efforts.

Bureau Investment Review Boards
To strengthen the relationship between Bureau and Departmental budgeting and capital planning,
the governance model introduces changes in membership and functions of the Bureau IRBs.
Most importantly, each Bureau’s primary E-Gov Team member should serve as an active
member on the Bureau IRB. This addition enables regular communication and coordination
between the E-Gov Team’s efforts and the individual Bureaus. During the ongoing CPIC
process, the E-Gov Team member will be well-informed on his or her Bureau’s investment
priorities, and as enterprise-wide priorities are established and opportunities for shared solutions
are identified, the member can ensure his or her Bureau’s needs are addressed.

Leveraging the Bureau IRBs to integrate their individual E-Government activities with
Departmental priorities is the key link between governance at the Departmental level and at the
Bureau level. As Interior turns to implementing the E-Government Strategy, Bureau E-
Government leaders will be challenged to align their efforts with the direction of the
Departmental E-Government strategy while supporting their Bureau’s own unique E-
Government needs, which vary widely. Just as the enterprise-wide IRB, E-Gov Team and ITMC
oversee and coordinate E-Government efforts across the Department, each Bureau’s IRB should
provide the same level of integration across all of that Bureau’s E-Government activities.
Ultimately, each Bureau will need to replicate the functions identified in this Departmental
Governance Framework to charter its own E-Government governance structure that is tailored to
the Bureau’s unique E-Government needs.

E-Gov Team Subteams
In the E-Government governance structure, the E-Gov Team also oversees three sub-teams: the
PMA E-Government Initiatives Representatives Team, the DOI Web Resources Council
(DWRC), and the Interior Business Architecture Team (IBAT). Based on the business focus and
the enterprise-wide impact of these sub-teams’ responsibilities, the E-Gov Team’s leadership
provides a natural location for tying these sub-teams into the overall governance structure. A
representative from each sub-team will attend E-Gov Team meetings on a regular basis to
provide updates of the team’s efforts, make recommendations as necessary, and report on any
items that need further discussion.

The PMA E-Government Initiatives Team consists of a representative from each of the federal
E-Government initiatives for which Interior is either the managing partner or a participant.
Coordination among the presidential E-Government initiatives is complex as more initiatives are


Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework
10
launched and implemented. The PMA E-Government Initiatives Team meets regularly to review
the status of the initiatives, discuss funding needs, and coordinate implementation of new
processes and backend systems within Interior that relate to the federal E-Government initiatives.
A close relationship between the E-Gov Team and the PMA E-Government Initiatives Team is
essential in enabling business leaders to establish priorities and understand the potential impact
of the Presidential E-Government initiatives on Interior.

The Web Council is an enterprise-wide group focused on improving Interior’s web services and
presence. As a sub-team to the E-Gov Team, the Web Council makes recommendations on
decisions related to improvements to the content and presentation of Interior’s Web presence.
The E-Gov Team will review recommendations from the Web Council and ensure decisions are
aligned with Interior’s E-Government strategy.

The Interior Business Architecture Team represents the primary business component of the
overall Interior Architecture effort. As a sub-team to the E-Gov Team, the IBAT will advise the
E-Gov Team of potential opportunities and recommendations for business process
transformation identified throughout the architecture definition process, and then receive
guidance from the E-Gov Team regarding how cross-Bureau business process can and should be
improved. The IBAT will work closely with other Enterprise Architecture and IT working
groups managed from the Office of the CIO.



Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework
11
3.2
Process Management Changes
Changing the leadership and organizational structure of E-Government at Interior is not enough
to successfully implement this strategy; the changes must be reinforced with new or enhanced
management processes. The key activities required for implementation span the full life cycle of
portfolio management, from heavy upfront strategic planning needs to ongoing oversight and
monitoring activities. They also require varying levels of involvement from Department and
Bureau organizational groups, based on the activity and each investment’s stage in the CPIC life
cycle. Different decision-making groups will be involved in different capacities for each key
activity along the dimensions of being responsible, accountable, informed and consulted. In this
context, the following definitions apply:
Responsible: The organization or individual primarily tasked with accomplishing the
activity
Accountable: The organization or individual ultimately answerable for performance
Consulted: Organizations or individuals who are engaged in dialogue to improve the
outcome of the activity
Informed: Organizations or individuals who are kept advised of the status of an activity

Activity
Responsible
Accountable
Consulted
Informed
Define Strategy
E-Gov Team
E-Gov Team/
MIT/MEC
MIT/ MEC/
Bureaus
Relevant E-
Gov Bodies
Identify Gaps and Redundancies in
Accomplishing Strategy
E-Gov Team
E-Gov Team
MEC/ MIT/
Bureaus
ITMC

Determine E-Government Opportunities
and Priorities
Departmental
IRB
E-Gov Team
MIT/ Bureaus
MIT
Subcommittees
Identify Appropriate Project Sponsors
and Integrated Project Team
E-Gov Team
E-Gov Team
Bureaus/
ITMC

Create Business Cases
Project Sponsor
Project
Sponsor
Bureaus
Departmental
IRB
Approve and Prioritize Major
Investments
Departmental
IRB
MIT/MEC
Office of
Budget/MIT
Subcommittees
Bureau
IRBs/Relevant
E-Gov Bodies
Develop, Implement, and Operate
Initiatives
Project Team
Project
Sponsor
Departmental
IRB/ IT
Working
Groups

Evaluate Progress Against Performance
Measures and MOUs/SLAs
Departmental
IRB
MIT/MEC
Project
Sponsor

Establish Consistent Communication
E-Gov Team/
Bureau E-Gov
Representatives/
Bureau CIOs
E-Gov Team
MIT
ITMC,
Bureaus, MIT
Subcommittees
Refine Strategy
E-Gov Team
E-Gov Team/
MIT/ MEC
MIT/ MEC/
Bureaus
Relevant E-
Gov Bodies




Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework
12
Annual E-Government Management Schedule
E-Government management activities span the full fiscal year, and many of the activities fall into
a repeatable annual process. The E-Gov Team is scheduled to meet monthly, except during the
quarterly Departmental IRB meeting periods. At the beginning of the fiscal year, the E-Gov
Team will identify current gaps and redundancies in how the IT portfolio is meeting the E-
Government strategic goals, objectives and strategies. After those gaps and redundancies have
been validated, the Departmental IRB will determine and prioritize E-Government opportunities
during an annual visioning session as input to the Pre-Select business cases. Subsequently in the
May Departmental IRB meeting, the Select business cases will be reviewed and prioritized with
a recommendation prepared for the MIT. The designated project managers are responsible for
preparing both the Pre-Select and Select business cases.

During the months when an IRB meeting is not scheduled, the E-Gov Team will meet to address
their responsibilities for decision-making regarding Presidential E-Government initiatives and
other enterprise E-Government-related activities. On a quarterly basis, the E-Gov Team will
review the progress of the business architecture and resolve any outstanding issues.
Semiannually or as needed, the E-Gov Team will review the status of the DOI Web Resources
Council’s activities. The following diagram depicts each month’s activities based on the fiscal
year schedule

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept

Identify Gaps and Redundancies
etermine and prioritize E-Gov opportunities
repare Pre-Select Business Cases (FY 06)
rioritize Pre-Select Business Cases (FY 06)
repare and Refine Select Bus. Cases (FY 06)
rioritize Select Business Cases and
ommend to MIT/ MEC (FY 06)
nduct Quarterly Review of Ongoing Projects
eview Federal E-Gov Initiatives Updates and
oordinate other enterprise-wide efforts
iew IBAT Updates
eview Web Resources Council Updates


















D
P
P
P
P
Rec
Co
R
C
Rev
R
E-Gov
Team
Project Mgrs
IRB
Project Mgrs
IRB
IRB
IRB
IRB
IRB
E-Gov
Team
E-Gov
Team
E-Gov
Team
E-Gov
Team
E-Gov
Team
E-Gov
Team
E-Gov
Team
E-Gov
Team
E-Gov
Team
E-Gov
Team
E-Gov
Team
E-Gov
Team
E-Gov
Team
E-Gov
Team
Respond to OMB Passback (FY 05)
IRB
IRB


Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework
13
Activity Overview and Description
The following section presents a more in-depth review of each activity with the purpose,
responsible party, tools, input, and output, as well as process steps involved in completing the
activity.

DEFINE STRATEGY
Activity Overview
Purpose
• Create an enterprise-wide strategic roadmap for E-Government at Interior
• Define the context of the story that Interior can tell regarding E-
Government implementation
Responsible Party
• E-Gov Team is responsible overall
• E-Gov Team Staff member(s) conduct research, analysis, and synthesis
Tools
• Not applicable
Input
• Administration and Secretarial Priorities
• Departmental Strategic Plan, Annual Performance Plans
• Presidential E-Government Initiatives
•
Interior Enterprise Architecture
• Federal Enterprise Architecture
•
Interior’s Existing Portfolio
• Bureau Strategic Plans
• DOI Interviews, Customer Interviews
•
IT Strategic Plan
• Other Departmental E-Government Plans
• E-Government Application Baseline
• E-Government Readiness Assessment
Output
• Department of the Interior E-Government Strategy
Timing
• Every five years, in conjunction with Departmental strategic planning
processes


Process Steps Overview
Process Steps
Responsible Party
Thoroughly review all relevant input materials such as the Department’s
Strategic Plan, IT Strategic Plan, Annual Performance Plans, and internal
and external reports.
E-Gov Team Staff
Conduct interviews with the Management Excellence Council (MEC),
key management executives, program staff and information technology
employees to understand Departmental priorities, business drivers and
high-level technology capabilities
E-Gov Team Staff
Conduct external research from customers about their needs and
challenges (if possible)
E-Gov Team Staff, Strategic
Planning Staff
Outline core business processes and understand current E-Government
capabilities to address them, beginning an E-Government baseline
E-Gov Team Staff, IBAT
Compile research into an E-Government Readiness Assessment to
understand the major opportunities and challenges for the Department
E-Gov Team Staff
Brainstorm what E-Government means to the Department and its
stakeholders and the desired result of executing E-Government in relation
to the Department and its stakeholders.
E-Gov Team


Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework
14
Review examples of E-Government mission, vision and strategic plans
from other organizations in the public and private sector
E-Gov Team Staff

Develop a straw E-Government mission and vision statement for
comment and feedback
E-Gov Team

Finalize and develop a consensus on one mission and one vision
statement to which each Bureau and office feel connected and represented
E-Gov Team
Develop straw goals and objectives that respond to the challenges and are
connected to the business
E-Gov Team Staff

Vet the revised goals and objectives until consensus is reached, including
the formal approval
E-Gov Team
Identified required E-Government strategies to fulfill the new goals and
objectives.
E-Gov Team
Create performance measurement approach
E-Gov Team



Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework
15
IDENTIFY GAPS AND REDUNDANCIES IN ACCOMPLISHING STRATEGY
Activity Overview
Purpose
• To identify gaps and redundancies in how E-Government initiatives fulfill
Interiors E-Government strategies and federal lines of business
Responsible Party
• Designated member of E-Government Team and IBAT prepares
• E-Government Team reviews
Tools
• E-Government capabilities mapping template
Input
•
Interior E-Government Strategy goals, objectives, and strategies
•
Interior Enterprise Architecture lines of business
• OMB Federal lines of business
•
Interior Exhibit 300 submissions
• List of additional E-Government initiatives
Output
• List of gaps and redundancies in Interior’s various initiatives
Timing
• Annually for formal documentation and discussion
•
Informal identification on an ongoing basis

Process Steps Overview
Process Steps
Responsible Party
Update the mapping template with the latest OMB/Interior lines of
business from the Enterprise Architecture
E-Gov Team Staff supported
by IBAT
Gather a comprehensive collection of current initiative documentation
(OMB 300s, CPIC documents, or other format)
E-Gov Team Staff
Map each of the initiatives to the Interior E-Government strategies it
serves
E-Gov Team Staff
Map each of the initiatives to the OMB lines of business that it serves
E-Gov Team Staff and IBAT
Identify E-Government strategies and OMB lines of business for which
insufficient initiatives are dedicated (gaps)
E-Gov Team Staff
Identify E-Government strategies and OMB lines of business for which
multiple systems/initiatives appear to perform the same function
(potential redundancies)
E-Gov Team Staff
List these areas of gaps and potential redundancies for further analysis
and prioritization for action
E-Gov Team Staff
E-Gov Team reviews the results for action, clarification, etc.
E-Gov Team
Share results of analysis with ITMC
E-Gov Team



Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework
16
DETERMINE E-GOVERNMENT OPPORTUNITIES
Activity Overview
Purpose
•
Identify E-Government opportunities to fill gaps or to consolidate redundant
efforts
Responsible Party
• E-Gov Team/ Departmental IRB
Tools
• Visioning session guide
Input
• Gap/redundancy analysis
• OMB Exhibit 300 input
• Analysis/discussions with project sponsor and project manager
Output
•
Identification of initiatives worthy of pre-select business cases
Timing
• Annually, as part of the formal CPIC process
• Continuously through the year, as ideas are brought to the Team

Process Steps Overview
Process Steps
Responsible Party
Conduct preliminary investigation of identified potential overlaps to
determine whether joint solutions might be feasible (including high-
level analysis of business process overlaps, relative data similarities,
customers affected, existing migration plans)
E-Gov Team Staff, with E-Gov
Team members from relevant
Bureaus
Conduct preliminary investigation of best practices regarding identified
gaps to determine potential new solutions
E-Gov Team Staff, with E-Gov
Team members from relevant
Bureaus
Conduct visioning session (especially, as part of annual process) to
identify which potential solutions may have merit to comprehensively
address the business issue (addressing both gaps and overlaps)
E-Gov Team/ Departmental
IRB
Document high-potential ideas, recommending that a pre-select
business case be conducted to further assess potential.
E-Gov Team/ Departmental
IRB



Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework
17
IDENTIFY APPROPRIATE PROJECT SPONSORS AND INTEGRATED PROJECT TEAM
Activity Overview
Purpose
• Determine the project sponsors for developing the business case and
implementing solution
Responsible Party
• E-Gov Team
Tools
• Not applicable
Input
• Description of project to be considered for pre-select business case
•
Input from Bureaus/offices regarding relative capability/experience with
this type of initiative
Output
• Recommendation to MIT for pre-select business case and project sponsor
Timing
• As initiatives are identified

Process Steps Overview
Process Steps
Responsible Party
Identify key qualities of the initiative under consideration:
• Core mission function
• Key business process
• Location of similar solutions in Interior
• Special skill requirements
E-Gov Team Staff
Identify all Bureaus and offices which would be likely to participate in the
solution (identifying major or minor roles)
E-Gov Team Staff, in
consultation with Bureau E-
Gov representatives
Conduct discussion at E-Gov team meeting regarding options for
sponsorship among major participants
E-Gov Team
Assign sponsor by consensus
E-Gov Team
Identify/assign preliminary key roles for additional participants to support
business case development
E-Gov Team
Recommend sponsor and initiative to the MIT for development of a pre-
select business case
E-Gov Team




Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework
18
CREATE BUSINESS CASES
Activity Overview
Purpose
• A business case for a prospective Federal IT investment is created in the
form of an Exhibit 300 and supplemented by documents such as a
cost/benefit analysis, a security plan, a project plan, etc., as delineated in
Interior’s CPIC Guide. These documents provide the information needed
for management to make informed decisions about an investment’s future
value and viability.
Responsible Party
• Project Sponsor
Tools
• Exhibit 300 format and guidance from OMB
•
Interior’s CPIC Guide
• Business Case Summary Template
Input
• Gap or redundancy identification and opportunity validation processes
Output
• Completed Exhibit 300 with required supplemental information, according
to appropriate CPIC phase
Timing
• Annual CPIC cycle – high level business case is completed for Pre-Select
phase; full business case is first completed for Select phase

Process Steps Overview
For Pre-Select Phase:
Responsible Party
Complete a mission needs statement and concept documentation
Project Sponsor
Complete required portions of Exhibit 300, according to CPIC guidance
Project Sponsor


For Select Phase and Beyond:
Responsible Party
Describe the opportunity, by identifying the as-is environment and the
desired end state
Project Sponsor
Define why the opportunity is important to Interior
Project Sponsor
Determine how the initiative will be developed and managed
Project Sponsor
Define the alternative solutions to addressing the opportunity
Project Sponsor
Perform cost and benefit assessments of the alternatives
Project Sponsor
Analyze the alternatives and select the most appropriate option
Project Sponsor
Outline a project schedule and performance goals
Project Sponsor
Complete the OMB Exhibit 300 and all other business case
documentation, as required by Interior’s current CPIC guidance
Project Sponsor
Summarize the business case using a one-page summary template
Project Sponsor


Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework
19
APPROVE AND PRIORITIZE MAJOR INVESTMENTS
Activity Overview

Purpose
• To review the Department’s prospective and current major IT investments
and recommend approval/disapproval and prioritization of investments from
a portfolio perspective in accordance with annual budget submission
Responsible Party
•
IT Portfolio Management Office
• E-Gov Team staff
• Departmental IRB
• MIT/MEC
Tools
•
Interior’s CPIC Guide
• Prioritization Framework
• Business Case Summary Template
Input
• Mission needs statement
• Concept documentation
• Business case summaries
• Exhibit 300s
• Supplemental documentation, as require by CPIC guidance
Output
• Approved and prioritized IT investment portfolio aligned with annual
budget submission
Timing
• Annual CPIC cycle

Process Steps Overview
For Pre-Select Phase:
Responsible Party
Review documentation for all Pre-Select phase investments as well as
most recent passback guidance from OMB
IT Portfolio Management
Office, E-Gov Team staff,
Departmental IRB
Evaluate whether each prospective investment merits proceeding to the
full business case in the Select phase, based on high-level strategic,
financial, and operational criteria, such as:
• Displays direct fulfillment of DOI Strategic Plan and E-Government
Strategy
• Addresses legislative requirements and/or Secretarial priorities
• Enables new or improved service to DOI’s customers or partners
• Leverages existing investments
• Exhibits potential for cost savings or revenue generation
•
Incorporates transfer solution from Interior Bureau, government
agency, or private sector
• Demonstrates potential applicability to other Interior Bureaus/offices
Departmental IRB
Rank, by consensus, the recommended approvals for Pre-Select
investments
Departmental IRB
Review prioritized recommendations from the Departmental IRB
MIT
Finalize recommended approval/disapproval of investments, and adjust
recommended priorities, as needed
MIT/MEC
Communicate final decisions to Departmental IRB
MIT


For Select Phase and Beyond:
Responsible Party
Review and score draft Exhibit 300s for all major IT investments
according to established DOI CPIC and OMB criteria
IT Portfolio Management
Office
Assess a benefit score, a cost score, and a risk level for each cross-cutting E-Gov Team Staff


Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework
20
major investment according to the information reviewed by the IT
Portfolio Management Office
Use the cost and benefit scores to plot the passing cross-cutting major
investments on a graph, and use the risk levels to flag high-risk
investments on the graph
E-Gov Team Staff
Assess the Quadrant I (high-benefit/low-cost) and Quadrant II (high-
benefit/high cost) investments against the E-Government strategic
objectives
E-Gov Team Staff
For E-Government strategic objectives not represented in these quadrants,
determine whether there are relevant investments in Quadrant IV (low-
benefit/low cost)
E-Gov Team Staff
If relevant investments exist in Quadrant IV, determine whether they
merit elevating to ensure E-Government strategic objectives are addressed
thoroughly
Departmental IRB
Rank, by consensus, the top 10 cross-cutting major investments in
Quadrants I and II
Departmental IRB
Review prioritized recommendations from the Departmental IRB
MIT
Finalize recommended approval/disapproval of investments, and adjust
recommended priorities, as needed
MIT/MEC
Communicate final decisions to Departmental IRB
MIT


Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework
21
DEVELOP, IMPLEMENT, AND OPERATE INITIATVES
Activity Overview
Purpose
• This activity represents the large volume of effort after an initiative is
funded – developing, implementing and operating an E-Government
Solution. The E-Government team is not heavily involved in the day-to-day
program management, so the processes and tools defined here are limited to
those with E-Government Team and CPIC implications.
• The E-Gov Team will help to monitor and enforce Service Level
Agreements (SLAs) and Memorandum of Understandings (MOUs) among
multiple parties in the solution
Responsible Party
• Project Sponsor and Project Team
Tools
• SLA or MOU examples and templates
Input
• Recommendations from the E-Gov Team regarding roles and
responsibilities among parties
• Business Case descriptions of the responsibilities of the integrated project
team
Output
• SLAs or MOUs
Timing
• Prior to commencing work in development

Process Steps Overview
Process Steps
Responsible Party
Project sponsor meets with all component parties to clarify roles and
responsibilities of the integrated project team
Project Sponsor
Project sponsor drafts service level agreements to document mutual
responsibilities for the development and operation of the initiative
Project Sponsor
If needed, E-Government team assists in facilitating and negotiating
agreements
Project Sponsor, E-Gov
Team
SLAs and MOUs are retained on file by the Project Sponsor, partner
Bureaus, and the E-Gov Team for assessment during quarterly reviews
Project Sponsor



Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework
22
EVALUATE PROGRESS AGAINST PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND MOUs/SLAs
Activity Overview
Purpose
• To measure, assess and make decisions regarding the progress and
effectiveness of the E-Government initiatives on a quarterly and annual
basis
Responsible Party
• Project teams
• Bureau representatives
• E-Gov Team Staff and IT Portfolio Management Office
• Departmental IRB, MIT, and MEC
Tools
• Project status reporting template
• Service-Level Agreement (SLA) status report
Input
• Project status from project teams
• SLA status from project teams and partner Bureaus
• Performance measures as defined in business cases
• E-Government strategy
Output
• Snap-shot of how Interior’s overall IT portfolio is performing
• Specific actions to improve the performance of certain ongoing E-
Government projects
Timing
• Quarterly evaluation of project and SLA performance
• Annual reevaluation of metrics used in the templates

Process Steps Overview
Process Steps
Responsible Party
Establish and maintain project costs, schedule, benefits and risks, and
technical baselines
Project Manager
Maintain current project costs, schedule, technical, and general status
information
Project Manager
Assess project progress against performance measures
Project Sponsor, Project
Manager, and IPT
Prepare quarterly/milestone control review documents
Project Manager
Evaluate quarterly/milestone control review documents
Project Sponsor
Review project status report and assess programs
E-Gov Team Staff and IT
Portfolio Management
Office
Create IT portfolio snap-shot based on program assessment
E-Gov Team Staff and IT
Portfolio Management
Office
Review project status report and recommend appropriate action
Departmental IRB
Make final control review decisions
MIT
Work with Project Manager to implement decisions
E-Gov Team Staff, IT
Portfolio Management
Office, and Project Sponsor


Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework
23
ESTABLISH CONSISTENT COMMUNICATION
Activity Overview
Purpose
• To proactively deliver open, consistent, and timely communications about
E-Government and endorse two-way communication between the E-Gov
Team and its Subteams, Department and Bureaus, E-Gov Team and the
ITMC, and the E-Gov Team and other MIT subcommittees
Responsible Party
• Departmental IRB
• E-Government Team
• Subteams of the E-Government Team
• Bureaus
•
ITMC
Tools
• Not applicable
Input
• Annual E-Government Management Schedule
• Key messages
Output
• Consistent communication across various groups involved with E-
Government
Timing
• Regularly based on E-Government related meetings
• At times when feedback or information sharing is necessary

Establish Consistent Communication with Subteams of the E-Gov Team Process Steps Overview
Process Steps
Responsible Party
Establish regular meeting schedule in team charter
Subteams of E-Gov Team
Identify representative to attend E-Gov Team meeting
Chair of E-Gov Team
Subteam
Prior to regular E-Gov Team meeting, send request to be placed on E-Gov
Team meeting agenda to E-Gov Team staff as needed
Chair of E-Gov Team
Subteam
Report the status of team’s efforts, make recommendations as necessary,
and any items that need further discussion and decision making
Chair of E-Gov Team
Subteam
Share minutes from the E-Gov Team’s meetings with Subteam members
Chair of E-Gov Team
Subteam
Discuss outcome of E-Gov Team meetings with Subteam members
Subteams of E-Gov Team
Take appropriate action based on E-Gov Team’s decisions and leadership
Subteams of E-Gov Team

Establish Consistent Communication with Bureaus Process Steps Overview
Process Steps
Responsible Party
After each E-Gov Team meeting, forward meeting minutes along with
comments/concerns to respective Bureau leaders
E-Gov Team Representative
Discuss outcome of E-Gov Team meetings and evaluate implications
with Bureau leaders through available communication channels (emails,
staff meetings, etc)
E-Gov Team Representative
and Bureau Leaders
Formulate recommendations to E-Gov Team based on Bureau’s needs
E-Gov Team Representative
and Bureau Leaders
Attend E-Gov Team meetings and express respective Bureau’s
perspective and voice concerns as necessary
E-Gov Team Members
Consider Bureau’s perspective and take appropriate action as necessary
E-Gov Team



Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework
24

Establish Consistent Communication with the ITMC Process Steps Overview
Process Steps
Responsible Party
Attend E-Gov Team meetings and ITMC meetings
ITMC representatives on the
E-Gov Team
Provide status update of ITMC activities to the E-Gov Team
ITMC representatives on the
E-Gov Team
Discuss ITMC activities as they relate to E-Government activities
E-Gov Team
Forward E-Gov Team meeting minutes to ITMC members
ITMC representatives on the
E-Gov Team
Coordinate quarterly and annual CPIC review meetings between E-Gov
Team and ITMC
E-Gov Team Staff


Establish Consistent Communication with Other MIT Subcommittees Process Steps Overview
Process Steps
Responsible Party
Consider impact of E-Government activities to other MIT subcommittees
E-Gov Team
Identify issues that need coordination with other MIT subcommittees
E-Gov Team
Communicate with other MIT subcommittee chairs, items that need
coordination
E-Gov Team chair
Attend other MIT subcommittee meetings as necessary to provide updates
and coordinate E-Government activities
E-Gov Team chair
Communicate activities or decisions made by other MIT subcommittees
that impact the E-Gov Team at regular E-Gov Team meetings
E-Gov Team chair



Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework
25
REFINE STRATEGY
Refine Strategy Activity Overview
Purpose
• Ensure E-Government Strategy is still relevant, is aligned to the
Departmental Strategic Plan, and addresses the high-priority areas for the
Department
Responsible Party
• E-Gov Team
Tools
• Not Applicable
Input
• Departmental Strategic Plan
• Existing Departmental E-Government Strategy
• Results of E-Government program level performance metrics
• Review and comments from Bureaus, strategic planning group, MIT, and
MEC
Output
• Department of the Interior E-Government Strategy Update
Timing
• Annually in conjunction with Departmental budget process/strategic
planning process

Refine Strategy Process Steps Overview
Process Steps
Responsible Party
Assess overall E-Government accomplishments against high-level
performance metrics
E-Gov Team Staff
Share implementation lessons learned and best practices between projects
and across Bureaus and the Department
E-Gov Team Staff, in
consultation with E-Gov
sponsors and project
managers
Review annual performance and key lessons learned
Departmental IRB
Identify potential changes in business needs and priorities
E-Gov Team, MIT, MEC in
consultation with Bureaus
Review each of the goals, objectives, and strategies and assess continued
relevance, management focus and technical feasibility
E-Gov Team
Revise strategies as business needs and technology advance
E-Gov Team and E-Gov
Team Staff



Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework
26
U.S. Department of the Interior
E-Government Strategy
Governance Framework Appendix A-1
Visioning Session Guide
2
E-Government Strategic Visioning
What is E-Government Strategic
Visioning?
What is Strategic Visioning?
• A collective, structured
approach to consider
solutions for the future.
• A technique for
generating creativity and
new business
opportunities.
• A structured methodology to
think about ways to use
technology to meet the needs
identified by an organization’s
leadership, its customers and
partners.
• A comprehensive approach to
aligning future and current
opportunities to the
organization’s goals and
objectives for E-Government.
3
E-Government Strategic Visioning
How can DOI vision E-Government opportunities?
•
Interior can organize its business and technology leadership, through the Departmental
IRB, to facilitate a Department-wide visioning session on an annual basis. The session
should be a free-flowing discussion between all attendees.
• The visioning session should focus on generating a list of potential solutions to address
how the Department can enhance services for citizens and increase efficiency through
technology, as articulated in the E-Government Strategic Framework. Particular
attention should be paid to filling gaps identified and addressing redundancies identified
in the E-Government capabilities mapping tool.
• While the Departmental visioning session should include a cross section of Bureau and
administrative offices, individual sessions can be held at the Bureau level or office for
items to “bubble-up” from the program managers, staff and technology groups.
4
E-Government Strategic Visioning
How can DOI structure a productive E-Government visioning
session?
Visioning Session Agenda
1.
Presentation of the Department’s mission, vision, goals, and objectives
2.
Overview of the Department’s key issues and priorities for the future (Secretarial
direction, interviews, management reports, etc.)
3.
Discussion about key stakeholder needs and expectations, i.e. customers, partners,
employees, and volunteers
4.
Highlights of current and planned E-Government initiatives at Interior, including
gaps and redundancies in how these initiatives map to Interior’s E-Government
Strategic Framework
5.
Prioritization of strategies in the Department’s E-Government Strategic Framework
6.
Brainstorming exercise on new opportunities to meet the identified strategies in
order to address the highest priority business needs
5
E-Government Strategic Visioning
How can DOI spur positive energy, creative thinking, and openness to
new ideas?
Potential Visioning Session Ground Rules
9 No stupid ideas
9 Think big, start small, scale fast
9 No impediments
9 Keep things moving
9 All participate
9 Think outside of the box – be creative
9 Enterprise approach
9 Customer perspective
6
E-Government Strategic Visioning
How should participants think about implementing E-Government
strategies?
Suggestions for Visioning “Wish List” of Solutions
• Improvements in the direction, focus and delivery of existing programs
• New capabilities to respond to future challenges or imminent threats to
fulfilling mission
• Cost reduction opportunities to save money, processing time, or staff
resources
• Consolidation or integration of redundant applications to deliver one E-
Government solution
• Removing functions that will no longer be required in the future or
applicable to the Department’s or Bureau’s business models
• Leveraging best practices within Bureaus or other government and/or
private sector solutions
Business Case Summary: Template – Date
Governance Framework Appendix A-2



Department of the Interior
1

Current OMB Phase:
Planning
Acquisition Steady-State
ycle
Mixed Life-C
Initial Concept
Project Name



Sponsoring Bureau(s)/Office(s):
Participating Bureau(s)/Office(s):

Value Proposition:
• Strategic:
o

• Financial:
o

• Operational:
o


eGovernment Strategic Objective (s):

Current Capability (As-Is Overview):

•


Planned Capability (To-Be Overview):
•


Cost-Benefit Summary:
Dollars (000’s)
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
Total Benefits






Total Costs






ROI
Net Present Value



High-Level Timeline & Milestones:
•


Risks and Dependencies:
•


U.S. Department of the Interior
E-Government Strategy
Governance Framework Appendix A-3
Portfolio Management
Prioritization Framework
2
To implement its eGovernment strategy, Interior must
carefully evaluate and prioritize its major investment
opportunities using a portfolio approach.
‰ How can eGovernment capabilities be
applied to best carry out Interior’s
mission?
‰ Which investments will provide the
greatest value (benefit vs. cost)?
‰ Which investments are “must-have” high-
visibility projects?
‰ What mix of investments will best fulfill
Interior’s eGovernment Strategic Plan?
‰ What mix of investments will use
Interior’s funding and staff resources
most effectively?
In addition to addressing
Clinger-Cohen, OMB and
GAO requirements, a
structured portfolio
management prioritization
tool provides a
consistent, objective
means of guiding critical
decisions, such as:
3
Managing a portfolio of investments requires careful
consideration of all initiatives against standard evaluation
criteria.
Evaluation Criteria Sources
‰ The President’s Management Agenda, “Expanding Electronic Government”
component which charges agencies with advancing eGovernment strategies by
supporting projects that offer performance gains across agency boundaries.
‰ The eGovernment Act of 2002, which establishes a new Office of Electronic
Government and assigns responsibility for improving online access to information
and services to agencies;
‰ The Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), which requires Federal
agencies to provide options for the public to transact electronically with them by
October 2003;
‰ The Government Accounting Office’s (GAO’s) Information Technology
Investment Management Framework (ITIM), which provides guidance to Federal
agencies on building mature IT investment management capabilities.
‰ The Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) annual budget process, which
requires agencies to submit Exhibit 300 business cases for IT investments; and
‰ A set of widely recognized best practices that accompanies eGovernment/
eCommerce implementations in both the public and the private sector.
4
The criteria used in this prioritization framework fall into
three related categories for scoring prospective and current
initiatives.
In the suggested prioritization framework, initiatives will be assigned a
score in each of the following key areas:
Benefit
Cost
Risk
5
Initiatives’ benefits should be scored based on financial and
non-financial benefits, in tangible and intangible forms.
Benefit Scoring
Benefit
Examples
Scoring Criteria
Financial
(Tangible)
Financial
(Intangible)
Non-financial
(Tangible)
Non-financial
(Intangible)
• Revenue increases
• True cost savings
• Cost avoidances
• Value of employee labor savings
• Value of savings for partner organizations
•Expected savings that can only be grossly
estimated
• Measurable business pprocess
improvements
•Reduction in reporting burden on the public
and/or employees?
•High volume of public users/respondents
and/or high frequency of use
• Improved customer and/or employee
satisfaction
•Addresses legislation, GAO weaknesses,
OMB guidelines or IG findings
5) Very High
Revenue Increase/Cost Savings > $100 million; Project will result in
dramatic improvement in a key mission area
4) High
Revenue Increase/Cost Savings between $100M and $60M; Project
will result in noteworthy mission area improvement, or dramatic
improvement in non-mission area
3) Medium
Revenue Increases/Cost Savings between $60M and $35M; Project
will result in significant improvement
2) Low
Revenue Increases/Cost Savings between $35M and $10M; Project
will result in minor improvement
1) Very Low
Revenue Increases/Cost Savings <$10M; Project will provide
negligible improvement
6
Similarly, initiatives should be evaluated and scored on
financial and non-financial costs.
Cost Scoring
Cost
Examples
Scoring Criteria
Financial
(Tangible)
Financial
(Intangible)
Non-financial
(Tangible)
Non-financial
(Intangible)
• Revenue decreases
• Increased expenditures (lifecycle)
• Costs for additional technology components to
support project (i.e. security and records
management)
•Value of DOI employee labor efforts
• Additional costs to partner organizations
• Potential additional costs that can only be grossly
estimated
• Impairments to business processes
• Impairments in cycle times, mission performance
or other criteria
•Lowered customer and/or employee satisfaction
• Failure to meet and/or address legislative priorities,
GAO material weaknesses, OMB guidelines and or/
IG findings
5) Very High
Costs > $100 million; Dramatic decrease in a key mission
area
4) High
Costs between $100M and $60M; Noteworthy mission area
decrease, or dramatic decrease in non-mission area
3) Medium
Costs between $60M and $35M; Significant decrease
2) Low
Costs between $35M and $10M; Minor decrease
1) Very Low
Costs <$10M; No/ negligible decrease
7
In addition to scoring costs and benefits, risks must be
assessed and factored into the prioritization process.
Risk Types Key Questions
Criteria
Skills and
Complexity
Technology
Cost Sensitivity
Privacy &
Security
Are the right people in the right place,
with the right skills, at the right time?
Do electronic approaches and
solutions unify and simplify systems
development and information and data
collection efforts?
Are costs minimized, as well as
appropriately accounted for, controlled
and managed throughout the lifecycle
of the project?
Have security safeguards and
performance been maximized to
protect the availability, confidentiality,
and integrity of system assets?
Red – Complex undertaking with little DOI experience and
little outside expertise available; Largely unproven
technology & unsupported and/or technology not aligned
with DOI architecture; Cost estimates include significant
unknown or uncontrollable factors; Use of unproven
technology or process changes raises significant concerns
about system security or privacy of personal information.
Yellow – Complex undertaking requiring significant
management attention and external support; Technology
that is gaining general acceptance, though history of use
may not be long and/or technology that does not leverage
existing DOI IT investments; Costs relatively well defined,
and contract mechanisms in place to limit overall costs;
Privacy and security are a concern, but proven processes
and technology will mitigate risk.
Green – Common task for DOI personnel or contractors;
Universally accepted, reliable solutions aligned with
existing/proposed DOI IT investments; Costs very unlikely to
increase; Investment unlikely to negatively affect privacy or
security.
Risk Assessment
8
Scoring placement on the benefit/cost graph provides a
comparative overview of initiative value. Initiatives with a red
risk level should be flagged.
Benefit/ Cost Comparison
COST
BENEFIT
Low Benefit/ High Cost
Low Benefit/ Low Cost
High Benefit/ High Cost
High Benefit/ Low Cost
I
II
III
IV
9
Initiatives in Quadrants I and II should be examined to
determine whether they collectively address all of Interior’s
eGovernment strategic objectives.
E-Government at the Department of the Interior enhances services for citizens and increases efficiency by using technology to improve business
processes.
DOI E-Government Mission
DOI E-Government Vision
Technology for citizen-centered, integrated, secure services.
E-Government Goal #3
Recreation
1.2 Sustain Biological Communities
1.3 Protect Cultural and Natural
Heritage Resources
2.2 Water and Generate Hydropower
4.4 Quality Communities for Tribes and
Alaska Natives
3.2 Provide for Fair Value
Guiding Principles
E-Government Goal #4
Serving Communities
4.2 Advance Knowledge Through
Scientific Leadership
4.3 Fulfill Indian Fiduciary Trust
Responsibilities
4.5 Increase the Economic Self
Sufficiency Of Insular Areas
5.4 Performance Measurement and
Decision-Making
E-Government Goal #5
Management Support
5.2 Financial Management
5.3 Physical Assets and Fleet
Management
5.5 Information Management and
Workflow
5.6 Geospatial Information Management
6.4 Technical Infrastructure
6.2 web Presence
6.3 Privacy and Security
E-Government Goal #2
Resource Use
E-Government Goal #1
Resource Protection
1.1 Improve the Health of Watersheds,
Landscapes, and Marine Resources
5.1 Strategic Human Capital
6.1 Governance and Program
Management
E-Government Goal #6
Organizational
E-Government Capabilities
2.1 Manage Resource Use
3.1 Provide for a Quality Recreation
Experience
4.1 Protect Lives, Resources, and
Property
E-Government Governance Model
10
If any eGovernment objectives are not addressed in
Quadrants I and II, initiatives in Quadrant IV should
assessed for possible elevation to fill this gap.
General Prioritization Guidelines
Quadrant I “High Benefit/ Low Cost”
¾ Initiatives should be highly targeted
Quadrant II “High Benefit/ High Cost”
¾ Initiatives may need to be evaluated
Quadrant III “Low Benefit/ High Cost”
¾ Initiatives should be deferred
Quadrant IV “Low Benefit/ Low Cost”
¾ Initiatives may be targeted as quick wins
Additionally, all flagged “red” risk initiatives should be
evaluated carefully. Value should always outweigh risk.
The eGov Team could request additional work to plan
improved risk mitigation strategies.
Highest
Priorities
Ranked

Project Status Report Template – Date

Governance Framework Appendix A-4


Project Status Report

Project Name:
Lead Bureau:
Point of Contact:
Category
Score
Justification/
Comments
Green Criteria
Yellow
Criteria
Red Criteria
Finance



Green

• Project cost less
than 10% above
budget
• Project cost 10-
30% above
budget
• Project cost
greater than
30% above
budget
Schedule



Red

• Project is less
than 10%
behind schedule
• Project is 10-
30% behind
schedule
• Project is more
than 30%
behind schedule
Participation



Yellow

• Sufficient
participation
from all
required
organizations
• Some
organizations
not sufficiently
participating
• Specific, key
organizations
not sufficiently
participating
• Majority of
organizations
overall not
sufficiently
participating
Performance



Green

• 90% or more of
customers
satisfied with
the system
• 90% or more of
internal system
users satisfied
with the system
• 95% or more of
system Mission
and Business
Results met or
exceeded
• No Mission or
Business Results
lacking by more
than 5%
• 75-90% of
customers
satisfied with
the system
• 75-90% of
internal system
users satisfied
with the system
• 90-95% of
system Mission
and Business
Results met or
exceeded
• Any Mission or
Business Result
lacking by 5% -
10%
• Fewer than 75%
of customers
satisfied with
the system
• Fewer than 75%
of internal
system users
satisfied with
the system
• Less than 90%
of system
Mission and
Business Results
met or exceeded
• Any Mission or
Business Results
lacking by more
than 10%
Risks



Green

• All high-
probability and
high-impact
risks have been
tracked and a
mitigation
strategy
identified
• 95% of high-
probability and
high-impact
risks have been
tracked and a
mitigation
strategy
identified
• Less than 95%
of high-
probability and
high-impact
risks have been
tracked and a
mitigation
strategy
identified




Department of the Interior
1

Project Status Report Template – Date

Governance Framework Appendix A-4


Service-Level Agreement Status Report

Service-Level Agreement:
Service Providing Bureau:
Point of Contact:
Category
Score
Justification/
Comments
Green Criteria
Yellow
Criteria
Red Criteria
Availability


Green

• System up-time
at SLA
requirement or
better
• System up-time
deviates from
SLA by 5% or
less
• System up-time
deviates from
SLA by more
than 5%
User Support


Red

• Help desk
response time at
SLA
requirement or
better
• Help desk
response time
deviates from
SLA by 5% or
less
• Help desk
response time
deviates from
SLA by more
than 5%
Functionality



Yellow

• All functionality
required by SLA
is delivered
• 95% or more of
the functionality
required by the
SLA is
delivered
• Less than 95%
of the
functionality
required by the
SLA is delivered
Customer
(Partner)
Satisfaction


Green

• Customers
generally
pleased with
service provider
• Most customers
pleased with
service
provider, but
notable
exceptions exist
• Large variation
in customer
satisfaction with
service
provider, or
• Most customers
less than
pleased with
service provider

Partner Bureau Comments
(Not to exceed 2 lines per Bureau)

Bureau 1


Bureau 2


Bureau 3


Bureau 4





Department of the Interior
2